Farm energy production will "soften" coal

Lagerwey is developing a permanent magnet drive 100kW wind turbine. If the design is efficient and robust, every rural community on the Upper Great and Great Plains could install one or more to reduce the bite of increasing electricity rates and provide power to ethanol plants. Electricity is quality of life; rural Americans can act to improve "QoL."

A “Letter to the Editor” in The Wall Street Journal (13 August) spurred me to read the 25 June report the letter referenced in the context of HR 2154 (“Rural Energy”). America's “fossil-fuel addiction” will lead to diversifying ag incomes and wide-spread rural development through energy production. Or we will “twiddle our thumbs” until our quality of life “goes to hell in a hand-basket.” One or the other- our choice.

In enacting HR 2154- Rural Energy for America Act of 2007- the Congress found that--

(1) rising energy costs and uncertain long-term energy supplies threaten to undermine the growth of the United States economy;

(2) since 2003, fuel and fertilizer costs have nearly doubled for agricultural producers;

(3) there are continuing and increasing risks to the energy security of the United States;

(4) having an affordable, reliable, and plentiful energy supply will strengthen the United States economy and improve domestic energy security;

(5) the agricultural sector can provide a significant source of clean, sustainable energy for the United States that can reduce the dependence of the United States on imported energy and lower energy costs for all people of the United States;

(6) agriculture-based energy--

(A) boosts rural economic development

(B) increases farm-based income

(C) creates manufacturing, construction, and service jobs

(D) expands economic opportunity for all people and

(E) improves environmental quality.

A little more than one month later, on 25 July, 2007, “New Power Plants Fueled by Coal Are Put on Hold” was published by The Wall Street Journal. Rebecca Smith reported, on pages A1 and A10

--from coast to coast, plans for a new generation of coal-fired power plants are falling by the wayside as states conclude that conventional coal plants are too dirty to build and the cost of cleaner plants too high.


[agriculture-based energy- wind and solar power and biofuels- in contrast, are another aspect of the stewardship successfully practiced by American farmers, ranchers, and other operators]

--if significant numbers of new coal plants don't get built in the U.S. in coming years, it will put pressure on officials to

--clear the path for other power sources, including nuclear power or

--trim the nation's electricity demand, so far this year growing at a brisk 2.7% annualarized rate.

[more than 60 clean energy-related bills are in-work for the 110th Congress, many of them involving the agriculture industry in one way or another]

-- ... long-term consequences of not building the plants ... higher prices or the potential for shortages.


[a focused effort to harvest some of the more than three thousand billion kWhs of wind power that blows through the Upper Great Plains states each year can be a means to avoiding those consequences]

--by May 2007, 150 new plants were planned for construction alongside the 645 existing U.S. plants

--coal was expected to reduce the use of natural gas, even though coal emits twice as much carbon dioxide when burned as does NG

page A10

--nearly two dozen coal projects have been cancelled since early 2006 [source: National Energy Technology Laboratory]

--on 18 July, Citibank commented: “prophesies of a new wave of coal-fired generation have vaporized.“

--climate change has become a hot-button political issue

--China is expected to become a net importer of coal this year. Sales to China may substitute for [reduced] U.S. purchases.

--new nuke plants are several years away [and themselves face intense resistance from a number of groups]

--wind and solar power [aren't "always on at the flip of a switch"]


[what agriculture-based energy production lacks- for the time being- in efficiency compared to traditional power plants, it would make up for when millions of acres of agriculture land concurrently produce energy]

[agriculture-based energy production on the Upper Great Plains states co-exists with nearly all agriculture operations and other organizations. While many ag operations are seasonal, energy productions are perennial]


--if coal stumbles, natural gas is “the bridge fuel.” But other industries are increasing their use of NG as a fuel or raw material [such as for fertilizer, raising the specter of importing more foreign NG, in addition to oil].

--sudden and forceful changes to the nature of the power industry have arisen because of environmental concerns and the costs associated with eradicating them


[wind and solar power production use no fossil fuels, so no emissions. Biofuels may or may not emit fewer pollutants than fossil fuels; it depends on who is measuring and what is being measured. One agriculture-based energy production method- anaerobic digestion- converts animal wastes into hydrogen and other products.]

--Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is not in favor of Xcel Energy buying coal gas from Excelsior Energy largely because a $635.4 million pipeline for carrying carbon dioxide would have to be built

--Xcel in Colorado is buying 775 MW of wind power to offset the carbon dioxide emitted by a 750 MW coal-fired plant

--Peabody Energy and ConocoPhillips may build a coal gasification plant; claims its coal gas [$5 – $6 per trillion cubic feet] may be price-competitive with natural gas [$2 – $3 per trillion cubic feet]. [What assumptions allow this?]


[weighing all of the pros and cons, from environmental to manufacturing job creation to local economic development, wind power today is price-competitive with coal- and nuclear-fired power plants].

Several high-wind hours on Aug 15 here in Watertown: SE at 8 mph; also had a couple of hours of Calm (less than 5 mph).

'Til next time, Best Wind.